51–60 of 145 posts
I must be missing something. I haven't been to yahoo.com in a long time, but this looks very similar to what I remember, just slightly updated for last year's style. http://i.imgur.com/Z0EH12W.jpg
You have to go to the us homepage try http://us.yahoo.com/
I've only looked at the mobile site on my iPhone, but it looks great. One of my complaints about Yahoo's homepage has always been their gossipy headline news stories in big pictures on the front page. I'm sure that got them lots of clicks with most people, but for me it just made me despise going to Yahoo's website. It looks like they've replaced that with actual news so far.
Really? The top two stories on the news carousel for me are: 1. "Nonstop shouting" at Pistorius home 2. Bruce Lee's mystery fight (which was interesting, but not exactly big world news) Interestingly, I got the results above when logged into my Yahoo account, which I only use for Flickr and nothing else. When I visited Yahoo from a blank browser, the Bruce Lee story didn't show up. I wonder if Yahoo guessed that I wa…
Infinite scroll breaks the metaphor of the sidebar! The indicator no longer tells me how much more content there is on the page. I've hated it ever since Facebook started doing it with photos.
I wonder if the story quality on the front page will change. I went there yesterday and was blown away by the degree of "tabloidism" that I almost took a screenshot of how laughable it was. Using yahoo for searching the web isn't even a thought anymore, I honestly feel bing comes to mind before yahoo. And as for a news source, forget it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you put it in "plain English"?
"We made it less crap." Or, actually usable: "We gave it a makeover."
(As though the average Yahoo reader owns individual stocks?)
[1] http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2013/02/20/17028847-the-n... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-on-today-show-2...
"Overall it was important to me that the page be dynamic, that it feel very fresh, and that it be very intuitive, and that it really tries to embody beautiful design" Is that really supposed to mean anything? It sounds like buzzword soup. It should kind of go without saying that she wants the site to be fresh, intuitive, and beautiful. I don't think anyone wants a stale, frustrating and ugly website. That said, news…
This is a fluff piece aimed entirely at nontechnical readers. "Beautiful", "intuitive", "dynamic", "personalizable", and so on are exactly the words this audience wants to hear. They wouldn't understand anything more jargon-y and don't care how the site was built, they just want to know how they're going to feel while using it.
It's buzzwords, not a meaningful reflection on the changes. People that aren't professional writers think that stringing positive-sounding words together in a way that is grammatically correct will result in a good sentence. The result is corporate speak.
"The synergy of the positive verbiage results in a dynamic reading experience." No, it makes me want to hit my head on the desk until my eyes get too watery to read the text anymore. Or post an angry comment on HN. One of those.
I have Ghostery and Adblocks enabled, so I don't know if others see Ads and how it impacts the experience.
1. Some elements of the design look "Googley", and that's not a compliment. Specifically: light gray borders, link color, low contrast, sterille, cold, boring, lacks personality.
2. Unpolished. Buttons don't change style on hover or press, title bar shadow looks odd on an overall shadowless page, the "More" menu blends with the background.